ArticleCureus2025
Clinical Audit on Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) Risk Assessment and Guideline Adherence in Surgical Practice.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improving adherence to venous thromboembolism prophylaxis guidelines in surgical inpatients: a closed-loop clinical audit in a resource-limited setting.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- The Caprini score for venous thromboembolism risk assessment: A scoping review of applications, validation, and future directions.Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders · 2026Article
- Knowledge and awareness level of venous thromboembolism among the general population in Saudi Arabia.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVenous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of preventable complications among surgical inpatients, yet compliance with risk assessment and prophylaxis often falls short, particularly in resource-limited settings. This audit aimed to evaluate and enhance VTE prevention practices through structured interventions.
methodsA closed-loop audit was performed in two cycles: an initial baseline assessment of 49 surgical inpatients, followed by a re-audit of 53 patients after implementing targeted interventions. Surgical inpatients were assessed using an evidence-based proforma adapted from international guidelines. Interventions included staff education, standardized documentation tools, visual reminders, and electronic prompts. Outcomes focused on the completion of risk assessments, appropriateness of prophylaxis, and delivery of patient education.
resultsCaprini score calculation improved from 45/49 (91.8%) in the first cycle to 53/53 (100%) in the second (p = 0.107). Documentation of prophylaxis duration rose significantly from 22/49 (44.9%) to 48/53 (90.6%, p < 0.001). Guideline-consistent management plans increased from 23/49 (46.9%) to 45/53 (84.9%, p < 0.001). Patient education demonstrated the largest significant improvement, from 14/49 (28.6%) to 43/53 (81.1%, p < 0.001). Doctors' awareness and adherence to appropriate prophylaxis also improved, with elimination of inappropriate use in low-risk patients and a substantial rise in extended prophylaxis for high-risk cases.
conclusionThis audit demonstrates that low-cost, multifaceted interventions can strengthen VTE prevention in a resource-limited Sudanese hospital. The unique contribution of this study lies in adapting international guidelines to the Sudanese hospital context, thereby offering a feasible and context-sensitive model for comparable low-resource settings. Sustained improvement will require standardized tools, continuous education, and regular re-auditing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.